Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapan Roy Paul & Anr vs Jyoti Singh & Ors on 6 September, 2022
Form J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
CRR 2332 of 2022
Tapan Roy Paul & Anr.
Vs.
Jyoti Singh & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Satrajit Sinha Roy, Adv.
Judgement on : 06.09.2022.
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
The petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision invoking
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of
Sinthi Police Station Case No. 43/2022 dated 28 th June, 2022 under
Sections 341/323/354B/509/506/114/379 of the Indian Penal Code
corresponding to GR Case No. 1631/2022.
It is submitted by the Learned Advocate for the petitioners that
indisputably on 28th June, 2022 over illegal construction and
encroachment allegedly made by the father of opposite party no. 1,
Jyoti Singh and her other relatives.
Over the said incident a mutual fighting between the parties
took place. The petitioners got injured in course of such fighting. On
the other hand, the de facto complainant also lodged a complaint over
the selfsame incident against the petitioners for allegedly causing
hurt, outraging modesty, criminal intimidation and so forth against
the petitioners. Police registered both the cases and process of
investigation is going on.
At this stage, the petitioners have come forward to quash the
written complaint submitted by the opposite party no. 1.
I have already recorded that the alleged incident took place in
course of mutual scuffling and fighting between the parties. In
criminal proceeding question of illegal encroachment etc. is not the
subject-matter. Both the parties have lodged complaint against each
other. The investigation is going on. The Learned Advocate for the
petitioners refers to a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Dr.
Karunakar Pata -Vs.- State reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del
245. He specially relies upon paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said
report which are quoted below:-
"10. The Supreme Court has time and again laid down the
parameters that must be adhered to by a High Court while exercising
its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR. Along
with the parameters, it has been consistently observed by the Apex
Court that the inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to
be exercised sparingly and with caution, and only when such exercise
is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. In
this context, it would be pertinent to reproduce Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this
Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of
the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice."
11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, the Supreme Court provided a precise, clearly defined set of
inflexible guidelines laying down instance where such an inherent
power could be exercised for quashment of an FIR. The relevant
portion of that judgment has been reproduced as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myraid kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offences but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the
court will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or caprice."
With the above observation, the Hon'ble Judge in Delhi High
Court found that the material-on-record in the case in hand revealed
that the contents of the FIR are sketchy in nature and are void of any
specific regarding the offences which had allegedly been committed.
On the contrary, on perusal of the FIR submitted by the
opposite party no. 1 it is, prima facie, ascertained that the opposite
party no. 1 has made a detailed report about the incident. She went
on alleging further that the petitioners tore her wearing apparel apart
in public and thereby outraged her modesty. The FIR does not
contain any sketchy, frivolous and vexatious statement for which it is
necessary for the Court to call for status report.
When both the cases filed by the petitioners as well as opposite
party no. 1 are in the process of investigation, this Court is not in a
position to accept the submission made by the Learned Advocate for
the petitioners that before taking into the final decision in the instant
revision perusal of the case diary is required or status report of the
investigation of the case is also required. In view of such discussion,
I do not find any reason to entertain the revisional application and the
same is summarily dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
Srimanta, A.R.(Ct.)
Item No. 04.
